Anarchy: noun lack of organization and control, especially in society because of an absence or failure of government.

Anarchist: noun the political belief that there should be little or no formal or official organization to society but that people should work freely together.

This, alone, is something to think about. Anarchy is considered a failure of the government, yet Anarchists are people who strive for anarchy. By these definitions, Anarchist would strive for the failure of governments. It can be reasoned that this is true, but ultimately that's not the true message of anarchism.

There are three things of relevance when it comes to judging any form of government. The first question one should ask themselves when seeing a political theory is, is it ethically defendable? In my opinion, this is the first of three questions, for if a theory is not ethically defendable, it is incapable of being an effective political movement whatever other forte's it may have. The easier it is to defend the political theory, the more likely it's a good theory. The second question is whether the theory is actually better than existing theories. It may seem obvious, but why think of a new way of government when the old one does better? The third question is just as important as the first two: Is the theory realisable? It may be the way to a utopia, but if it is undoable (and in such cases, it most likely is), it's not a good theory. Communism is a good example of this, but more on that in a later essay. Today, I want to discuss Anarchy. With these three questions in mind, I will show why Anarchy can or can't work. Please, let me explain.

Let's start with the first question; 'Is Anarchy ethically defendable?' If we take a look at the three most influential moral theories (natural law doesn't really provide us with any kind of answer), we'll notice that one theory in particular supports the idea of Anarchy; Aristotle's virtue ethics. Central to Aristotle's ideas is the notion of excellence. One must always use him or herself's full potential. Anarchy, too, is based on the idea that everybody should be absolutely free to develop him or herself, to 'excel', if you like. The lack of protection from any sort of institution in anarchy isn't a problem for Aristotle, as he considers men good by nature. In other words, if one knows how to act right, he will always do so.

The second relevant ethical theory is the categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant. Let's see how the maxim 'Can you want to live in a society without a government?' works out. As you can see, this is slightly more tricky than Aristotle's theory and I think it suffices to say that we won't get a clear answer from Kant. This is, ofcourse, somewhat less of a problem because Anarchy can already be defended with Aristotle's theory. The same goes for utilitarianism. It is rather difficult to measure how much happiness an anarchist society will bring to the collective. As I'm not learned in the subject of ethics, I will discuss it no further. It's definitly an interesting topic, but for the sake of the understandability of the essay I'll continue with question two.

Is it better than existing political theories? I think I can wholeheartedly say; Yes. It is. At least from the perspective of Aristotle there's absolutely no thing better. As virtue ethics are the most dominant theory in modern culture, many people will agree that the ideas of unlimited liberty and the lack of ruling class are virtues in themselves. In that way, Anarchy shares traits of a eutopia, but whether this eutopia is also a utopia depends on the last question.

Is the theory realisable? In my opinion, this is the great shortcoming of Anarchy. It isn't realisable. 'Why can't we all get along?' is something people have been saying since the dawn of time (in other languages perhaps, but still). It's simple; we can't all get along. That is exactly the problem with Anarchy. While other forms of government require only a majority (or even less) of the people to support it, Anarchy requires every single person in the world to support it. Never in the history of mankind have we even come close to all agreeing on a particular subject and I don't think it's in human nature to be able to do so either.

Therefore, I would conclude that while Anarchy is a beautiful theory in itself, it is simply unachievable for mankind. It is ethically defendable, better than existing theories, but not realisable. Naturally, I've only scratched the surface of the arguments for and against Anarchy, but as you may know, there's only so much you can mention in an essay. I'd like to invite all readers to join the discussion. Mention things they disagree with, come with new arguments and enlighten us all. I would like to conclude with a quote from the well-known anarchist Emma Goldman:

"Anarchism, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.”